1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Environmental change - What can we do?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Avenged7Fold, Oct 30, 2018.

  1. 413x

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jan 13, 2010

    Posts: 16,395

    Location: Cardiff

    Cost of staying home to look after kid is much higher than a smartphone.
    I do agree one parent should (in an ideal. World) stay at home and look after the kid
     
  2. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 21,871

    Simple, don't have kids.
     
  3. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 64,557

    Forcing people to be vegan is a horrible idea and wouldn't solve anything anyway. Nothing will really chance until people start taking more of an individual responsibility at a global level and most people won't as per the second part of your post see the need for the kind of changes required until staring disaster in the face and by then it will be far too late - but rather than take any responsibility they will still be looking for someone to blame.

    If things are as some scientists are making out (and I'm still far from convinced as to the long term outcome - but neither do I have a problem with trying to change things for the better) it is already too late - the kind of measured talked about politically couldn't even come close to addressing the issue or even as a way of starting change in time.
     
  4. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,140

    Yes. Because the food for vegans also needs large agricultural efforts and areas dedicated for it.
    What I do or would like to do as my personal contribution:
    - avoid petrol/diesel cars;
    - use LED lighting everywhere;
    - use energy efficient appliances;
    - avoid purchasing products which are not of first need or that important, and those that I can live without;
    - tell everybody that this is good.
     
  5. 413x

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jan 13, 2010

    Posts: 16,395

    Location: Cardiff

    Just limiting meat is a benefit. (I'm not vegan but eat less meat than I did)
    But I agree its too late. Well, by time we come round it will be.
     
  6. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 14,105

    Forcing everyone to be vegan creates different problems. Like malnourishment and having to take food supplements to make up for the things your missing by not eating any meat.
     
  7. Poneros

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 18, 2015

    Posts: 3,289

    Not much to do, just prepare for the (inevitable) eventualities. Just like Jews in 30s Germany couldn't do much besides trying to leave the country.

    There will be a societal collapse, which is different from saying the species will be wiped out, simply because what holds society together and has brought us to this advanced stage is cheap energy. Cheap energy of which we're running out of and will most likely be without in the next century. Perhaps with wider nuclear adoption we'd have more time to develop other technologies but clearly public sentiment (of all kinds) isn't favourable to it, so we largely don't have it. Not much hope exists for renewables, because we need more storage than is possible to have (e.g. global yearly production of electricity is 23000 TWh, while possible storage - once - is at the limit of 250 Twh based on the totality of lithium reserves). To compound all this, of course, we also know that the climate is warming rapidly and that brings about enormous changes - good luck trying to stabilize that considering all the other dumb things we do on a daily basis. Who exactly's gonna stop CO2 emissions and how? Right.

    Right now we can pin our hopes on some technological miracles occurring, because otherwise human nature is such that we'll need some serious global catastrophes in order to re-order the world to develop in a more sustainable manner. If that's even possible.
     
  8. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 64,557

    There are many ways to store energy to generate electricity from albeit many options struggle to come close to the power density of lithium based technologies and/or suitability for use in portable scenarios not to mention efficiency but that isn't always an issue.
     
  9. satchef1

    Mobster

    Joined: Apr 17, 2009

    Posts: 4,344

    250TWh won't be an accurate figure anyway. It'll be based on a figure like the US Geological Survey estimate, which basically just counts the amount of a resource that we know exists, and is economically and technologically viable to extract. In the case of Lithium, that's 16 million tons. The number is revised annually (generally upward). It is by no means an absolute number. We believe there's billions of tons of Lithium in the world's oceans, for example. This isn't counted by the survey, as it isn't currently economically viable to extract (the concentration is too low).

    Oil has been much the same. Industry journals from 100 years ago were predicting the imminent end of oil. They assumed that we'd already found all of the oil on Earth. One of the best known examples of this is Hubbert, from 1956. He predicted that we'd hit the peak around the year 2000, and at 12.5bn barrels per year. It's now 2018, we'll produce around 36bn barrels this year, and we still haven't hit the peak. Hubbert wasn't out by a small amount; he was a long, long way short with his estimate. We found new reserves, and new ways to extract oil from previously unusable reserves.

    Lithium exploration is in relative infancy. It's far too early to make sweeping estimates about the number of Lithium Ion batteries we can make. We likely won't have any real idea for decades yet. 16 million tons could be in the right ballpark. Or there could be substantial reserves that we are yet to discover. Or extraction from seawater could become viable. Or the whole point may become moot; there's every chance Lithium Ion batteries will be superceded by something better.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2018
  10. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 64,557

    IIRC there are ways to significantly reduce the lithium required for a given capacity as well but currently not viable due to the scale (nano) of engineering required but eventually we will probably get there.
     
  11. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 21,871

    Demand is dropping every year for oil, which is the definition of peak oil, the Saudi's literally just dropped production. Finding new ways to extract something the world is less likely to use over time is just silly.
     
  12. satchef1

    Mobster

    Joined: Apr 17, 2009

    Posts: 4,344

    Is demand dropping year-on-year?

    [​IMG]

    Either way, the point is we have managed to produce far larger quantities of oil than was thought possible 100 years ago, 50 years ago, even (to an extent) 20-30 years ago. Estimates for the amount of a resource that remains are always based on known reserves, using current technology, and against the current economic backdrop. They change over time. In an immature market like Lithium, it's far too early to make absolute assumptions as to how much we can utilise for battery production. It could be in the region of 16 million tons. It could be 100 or 1000 times that figure. The margin for error is huge.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2018
  13. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 21,871

    The entirely depends on if you believe OPEC statements on their reserves, especially when it would damage the economy, the US particularly and each producer if they didn't keep it quiet.
     
  14. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,140

    Wolfgang Lutz of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis of Laxenburg, Austria, has argued that the world population could peak at 9.4 billion as soon as 2070, and be back down to 9 billion by 2100, without population control or a great epidemic. He says that improvements to women’s education in particular reduce fertility rates, by overcoming obstacles to using contraception and lowering desired family sizes, and that UN population projections ignore this.
    Whether it’s a natural decline, a strict policy or a disastrous plague, none of these population drops would be enough to fix environmental problems like climate change. The sticking point instead lies in our high consumption of natural resources.

    Bradshaw and Brook suggest that a sustainable human population, given current Western consumption patterns and technologies, would be between 1 and 2 billion people.

    “A sustainable population, given current Western consumption, would be 1 to 2 billion people”

    That’s an impossibly small target, but it shows where the real problem is. “Human behaviour is more important than human numbers,” says Lutz. “It’s not just the head count that matters, but what is inside the heads.”

    https://www.newscientist.com/articl...wouldnt-save-the-planet-from-us/#.VFFhyvnF--0
     
  15. Herojuana

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 24, 2007

    Posts: 1,261

    Location: Lancashire

    Don't worry too much. We should do everything we can in a personal capacity, but the UN Agenda 21 plan will alleviate many of the problems relating to environmental issues

    Summary

    The United Nations Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development programme is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by
    organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in everyarea in which humanity impacts on the environment'. 1
    Some of its‘ key policy objectives are
    • the harmonisation of incomes and re-distribution of wealth across the globe
    • the limitation of resource use (energy, water, minerals)
    • an end to national sovereignty
    • an end of western democratic process
    • the ending of Common Law
    • the abolition of private property
    • the abolition of private transport
    • the destruction of western industrialisation
    • the ending of free enterprise
    • populations to be concentrated in cities close to their place of employment,
    • continuous surveillance and monitoring of the population
    • the end of freedom of choice
    • the restructuring of the family unit and increasing limitations on mobility and individual opportunity
     
  16. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,140

    Not exactly the above points lol but focus on energy, food and trees. New green energies like quantum energy (and forget petrol and gas), always recycle paper, plastics, glass and metals, and save the forests.
    If possible, make the Sahara desert in Africa green again with forests.
     
  17. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 21,871

    That would disturb systems and continue to be an arrogant idea until we actually know the effect it would have. Just making the periphery desertification stop is about as far as that should go.
     
  18. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,140

    More forests means more oxygen in the atmosphere and less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which ultimately means lower temperatures globally.

    New energy sources is a must.
     
  19. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,140

  20. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,140

    Last edited: Nov 30, 2018